Maharaj

Vinodh Parsad Maharaj and his family, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that denied them asylum on the ground that they were firmly resettled in Canada after fleeing persecution in Fiji and before arriving in the United States. Under regulations applicable to Maharaj’s application, the Attorney General is precluded from granting asylum to an alien who was “firmly resettled” in another country prior to arrival in this country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (c)(2)(i)(B) (2000). An alien is considered firmly resettled if he “entered into another country with, or while in that country received, an offer of permanent resident status, citizenship, or some other type of permanent resettlement” unless he shows that entry into that country was a necessary part of flight from persecution, that he stayed there only long enough to arrange onward travel, and that he did not establish significant ties in that country; or that the conditions of his residence in that country were so restricted that he was not in fact resettled. 8 C.F.R. § 208.15 (2000).

The Maharaj es lived in Canada for four years after leaving Fiji. They worked in Canada and…

with whom KLEINFELD, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, join, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

While I agree that a remand to consider changed circumstances in Fiji is warranted with respect to the Maharajs’ request for withholding of removal, I must respectfully dissent from the court’s holding with respect to the merits of the Maharajs’ asylum petition. I believe the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) properly concluded that the Maharajs had been firmly resettled in Canada. In my view, the opinion of the court misconstrues the law of resettlement, opens our asylum process to an alien who is not fleeing from persecution, and invites abusive country-shopping.

I

The Maharajs fled Fiji in 1987, having experienced substantial persecution, see Maj. Op. at 964-65, on account of their Indo-Fijian ethnicity. The family settled in Canada, where it sought refugee status and applied for asylum. The Maharajs lived undisturbed, legally and openly, in Canada for four years, during which time Mr. Maharaj worked as a fulltime janitor and bakery deliveryman, while Mrs. Maha-raj received training to become a nurse’s assistant and worked full-time caring for the elderly. The Maharajs…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VINODH PARSAD MAHARAJ; SUNITA  No. 03-71066

DEVI MAHARAJ; PREETIKA MAHARAJ;

MEENAL MAHARAJ; VINEET Agency Nos.

MAHARAJ, A71-788-923

Petitioners,  A71-788-924

A72-402-323

v.

A72-402-324

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney A72-402-325 General, Respondent. 

VINODH PARSAD MAHARAJ; SUNITA  No. 03-73995

DEVI MAHARAJ; PREETIKA MAHARAJ;

MEENAL MAHARAJ; VINEET Agency Nos.

MAHARAJ, A71-788-923

Petitioners,  A71-788-924

A72-402-323

v.

A72-402-324

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney A72-402-325 General,

OPINION

Respondent.  On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted En Banc March 23, 2006 San Francisco, California

Filed June 9, 2006

6389 6390 MAHARAJ v. GONZALES Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Pamela Ann Rymer, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Sidney R. Thomas, Susan P. Graber, William A. Fletcher, Raymond C. Fisher, Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, Johnnie B.…